Leader: The mockery of the Center says a lot – but nothing about the Center

At the moment, there are no conditions to form a government in the middle of Swedish politics. Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C) found that out on Monday after a week of probing.

No, of course no one is surprised. In the same way that no one is surprised by the taunts thrown at the center leader over her unrealistic "dreams".

The situation is what it is: the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals have all been clear - they do not want to cooperate with Magdalena Andersson (S). She, in turn, has not sounded overly committed to finding a solution to the right since election day, and the environmentalists have explicitly said they are not interested in the matter.

But it is not a situation that arose as a result of some kind of natural law. But because the parties chose to have it this way.

There is a lot of talk about the Center Party's red lines. The right constantly appeals to C to put policy first. But what about the others?

The mandates are more than enough for the middle solution that Thand Ringqvist had as the main alternative. S, C, MP, KD and L have a majority in the Riksdag.

The differences between the five are also significantly smaller than between C and V or between C and SD – to take a couple of examples of parties that are seen by many as realistic to merge into the same group. Of course there are differences between these. As for nuclear power, both Ebba Busch and the environmentalists would like to decide. In migration policy, MP and to some extent C want a softer line than the others. But on these issues almost as difficult compromises will be required even if the cooperation only includes the Social Democrats and the Green Party.

The differences between the five are also significantly smaller than between C and V or between C and SD – to take a couple of examples of parties that are seen by many as realistic to merge into the same group. Not to mention the actual political differences between the bourgeoisie and the Sweden Democrats regarding the EU, integration and the climate - at least they existed before the stay at Tidö Castle.

The reason why it is not possible to put together a middle solution is spelled out in red lines. Or, to the extent that such are not stated – Ebba Busch says she has none – that some parties simply refuse to sit down and negotiate with some others, and it's probably the same thing in practice.

The same of course applies to all solutions involving S and M. The differences in migration and criminal policy are – for better or for worse – minimal. In energy policy, they mainly argue about whether an agreement needs to be put in writing or whether it is enough that they both vote for the same proposal.

Bourgeois or socialite, blue-yellow or red-green - a narrow conception of "law affiliation" is allowed to guide the actions of parties.

Even when it comes to economic policy, the differences have narrowed after both parties adopted the unhealthy "pour money on households, preferably the middle class" doctrine.

Still, they can't make up. For Ulf Kristersson, there is a shining red line against collaboration with Magdalena Andersson that only a Russian attack seems to be able to erase. And S refuses all solutions where the party does not have the post of prime minister.

Why then?

If things were based on actual politics, or the idea of ​​cooperating according to the principle of what is best for Sweden - then C's middle solution would not be dismissed as a "dream".

But this is not what drives those who mock the party, but a kind of distorted identity politics: bourgeois or sosse, blue-yellow or red-green - a narrow concept of "law affiliation" is allowed to guide the actions of parties.

Then the ambitions of the centrist parties become impossible. But that says less about them than it does about those who maintain this pernicious order.